I was gonna make a poll, but then figured it was more trouble then it was worth...

Heres the question....

I have the funtana 40, with a saito 82. I was talkign with one of my friends the other day, and he said that all of his bigger versions of planes( giant U-Can-Do, funtana 90 ect) performed better then the smaller versions. I thought just the opposite, especially with The U-Can-Do, i have never flown the funtana 90, but figured it probably wouldnt be as fun as the smaller one....Is this true? Does anyoen else have any opinions on this?

The bigger the plane, the best it flies IMO. Some people will say they fly more scale like. Well that may be true for a P-51 as an example. But how can you say a plane such as a Funtana flies scale like, when there is no full size version of that plane. The power to weight ratio of today`s RC models is way beyond full scale ones.

I know for a fact that you can accomplish some aerobatic tricks with a 33% Cap or Extra with gaz engines (20+ pounds aircraft) that you just can`t with a .40 size model. A parachute style landing is an example (no paruchute is involved here). These things fly as they were levitated by some obscure force. I saw it with my own eyes and had to pinch myself to make sure it was real.

It`s been said in another thread that the FuntanaS .40 size is a very good build while it`s bigger .90 brother is a bit weak (lighter, not enough wood). Disregarding that fact, and in line with what i said above, I am sure the .90 is a "better" flyer. I have seen both in action and that confirmed it.

For the same wing loading, a smaller model will always be swifter and rockier than a large one.